This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

So when's the discussion of the topic at hand going to continue and the forum fellatio between Catz and aps going to stop? I'd like to continue... or will it be another OMG circle jerk? Lemme know when the adults can talk again... otherwise, I'll let the peanut gallery continue...

Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

Originally Posted by Chappy

I posted this thread last Friday to this very forum, for which I was reprimanded for using a thread title that did not precisely match the article's title despite having taken the time to craft an opening post with four separate sources, Power Line, The New York Times, The American Prospect and The Huffington Post. My thread was summarily moved to the “US Partisan Politics and Political Platforms” forum. Such is the nature of hard and fast rules. Not that I am complaining. Just sayin'.

Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

Originally Posted by Ockham

So when's the discussion of the topic at hand going to continue and the forum fellatio between Catz and aps going to stop? I'd like to continue... or will it be another OMG circle jerk? Lemme know when the adults can talk again... otherwise, I'll let the peanut gallery continue...

Fellatio between two women? Wow. Who would have thought?

This subject matter was discussed to the hills yesterday. You missed it.

Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

Without delay? Do you even have a clue how long they "delayed" releasing the names?

Have you even bothered to do any research whatsoever?

Here's a clue. This has been going on for months. Only after Liz Cheney showed up on the O'Reilly Factor did they release the names.

Which means what? Can you show me the rule that requires government to disclose that information at all? The fact that they declined to release it for a period of time doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

I see you ducked the point that they work for the government and not a private firm.

What on earth are you talking about? Before they worked for the government, they were in private practice. That's exactly the same as my example. Jesus christ.

There is a big difference between fighting for your client and trying to reshape the law to fit Islamic terrorists and afford them American civilian rights.

That's the point.

To a layman who doesn't understand the law and is desperately trying to convince himself that he's right, I'm sure there's a huge difference. To people who actually know what they're talking about, zealous advocacy conducted in good faith is zealous advocacy conducted in good faith.

Look up the word. Clearly you do not know what the word means.

in·di·gent
/ˈɪndɪdʒənt/ Show Spelled[in-di-juhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty; needy; poor; impoverished.
2.
Archaic.
a.
deficient in what is requisite.
b.
destitute (usually fol. by of).

You've got to be kidding me.

Think really hard about why that definition applies to these detainees and see if you can come up with a reason. I'll start you off:

1) Can they afford a lawyer?

edit: **** it, you're not going to answer the question so I'll just tell you:

Most lawyers do pro bono work where they provide legal services to individuals who cannot obtain counsel on their own. These are the people I'm describing when I say "indigent," which goes back hundreds of years (look really closely at your definition again). The more common term nowadays is "public defender," but that's not precisely the right word here because it's not a traditional prosecution. The point is that they are individuals who would be unable to secure legal counsel but for the work of these attorneys. I understand that you get incensed at the thought of anyone doing anything to help people that you don't like, but as you can tell from the responses by leading Republican lawyers, most rational-thinking people are able to understand the difference between providing an essential service to a client and supporting their causes.

Again, how do you know this? How do you know they are poor and have no money at all? Where is your proof?

I need proof for this? Funny, because I thought that the issue of payment was between the individuals and their lawyers. I wasn't aware that they needed to run things by you in order to get approval for the arrangement.

More importantly though, what do you care? Are you trying to say that if they were getting paid, you'd think the situation was better? In reality, you'd just be bitching about how they're selling out the country. You don't give a **** about the legal arrangement, you just want to complain about people who don't share your views on this topic.

No see its not just about representing a client. This kind of thinking is what gives lawyers such a bad name.

No, it's actually the astonishingly uninformed claims like we've seen through this thread that tend to give lawyers a bad name. It's the profession's fault that some people are incapable of separating a lawyer from the actions of their client?

You cannot pretend you hold personal morals and defend Islamic terrorists and think they can be separated.

That's one way to look at it. Of course, using your logic, anyone who ever defends anyone who did anything bad is also immoral.

The stupidity of your argument is amazing. When was the last time someone who was a mob lawyer got hired as a DOJ lawyer to go after the mob?

If the mob were represented pro bono by excellent legal minds who were public service oriented, I think it would be quite common.

There are limits to such rank hypocrisy

If only.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

Have I missed this subject matter elsewhere on this message board? When both the right and the left attack the former Vice President's daughter, I am surprised that no one here has posted about this.

Liz Cheney makes me sick, and I am glad that people who served under Bush I and Bush II agree that her attacks are out of line. When Ken Starr shows up on Keith Olbermann, that says a lot about Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's stupidity.

I hope her stupid group "Keep America Safe" loses credibility as a result of her foolish statements.

When Ken Starr shows up on MSNBC then maybe we all ought to re-think the opinions we develope for all the political personalities we appose.

Think about it, Ken Starr was depicted as one of the most slimey and disgusting conservatives on the planet. But now he is an intelligent Dean worthy of consideration? He is superior to Cheney and Kristol?! How could that come to be?!?!

Obviously these characters, both right and left, are not so low as we like to paint them. We just let their staunch criticisms of our side hurt our feelings.
Either Starr is vile today, or he never was. What Cheney and Kristol say about the left is no worse than anything Kennedy ever said about Bork, or Dean about Republicans. They all go to verbal extremes in an effort to grap attention and support. It hardly seems worth getting "sick" and assuming "stupidity" is a reality.

Re: Republicans scold Liz Cheney

No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?

Many neoconservatives, particularly the older ones, do tend to have a negative view of homosexuality (try to think of an incredible amount of people born before the 1970s who are not biased against homosexuality somehow). However, that does not necessarily mean that they cannot get along with or be friends with homosexuals, especially if they are not seen as flamboyant. Take Allan Bloom, for instance. If we were to consider him Neoconservative, then you have a homosexual Neoconservative political philosophy professor and famed author. Now, from many people's accounts, the man seemed to keep his sexuality kind of boxed in away from people's view. Next, for many neoconservatives, it is probably a private matter and is not entirely on their political radar, at least to write and develop an agenda around.

If you are brilliant, you stand a fantastic chance at having interesting dialog with neoconservative scholars and policy wonks.

That being said, on topic: I thought this recent development, as many other have said, was rather desperate on their part.